• AbsentBird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    If the monkeys were truly infinite would time even matter? For any set of monkeys that could write Hamlet within a year there’s an infinite number of duplicate sets, so they could do as much writing in one day as the original set would do over the age of the universe.

    • millie@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Considering that there are an infinite number of potential arrangements of keystrokes that aren’t Hamlet? I’m honestly not fully convinced that you’d necessarily get Hamlet to begin with, let alone in a finite amount of time. Could you? Sure. But an infinite set minus an infinite number of possibilities still leaves an infinite number of possibilities. Any or all of which could not be Hamlet.

      There are an infinite number of values between 1 and 2, but none of them are 3.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        There aren’t an infinite arrangements of keystrokes that are the length of Hamlet and aren’t Hamlet. Hamlet is 191,726 characters long, it’s like guessing a password.

        44 keys on a typewriter, 191726 characters, makes 44^191726 or about 4.054 × 10^315094 combinations.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      You don’t get to pick and choose! You get infinite monkeys. What’s all this about duplicate sets? Sounds like somebody is trying to bring in a ringer! That’s cheatin!

      • Malgas@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The point is there’s no statistical difference between rolling one die an infinite number of times, rolling an infinite number of dice once, and rolling an infinite number of dice an infinite number of times.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          My comment was made in jest, I don’t actually believe this person was trying to “cheat” on the thought experiment by selecting only smart monkeys lol.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That’s the thing about infinity. If you have infinite monkeys, you don’t have to choose. You’ll have infinite instances of every possibility.

        Finding any of the monkeys that typed out something interesting (or did something interesting that wasn’t typing or more common interesting monkey stuff) is another issue. If there’s an 0.0000001% of something interesting and unusual happening by coincidence, then there will be 999,999,999 uninteresting or usual instances for each interesting and unusual one.

        Now if there were infinite copies of you searching the infinite monkeys for interesting and unusual events and all interesting ones get sent to an email address, the email server would overload in about the time it takes for the quickest interesting thing to happen, be noticed, and reported.